Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #419246 > unrolled thread

Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-12 13:11 -0700
    Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 15:18 -0500
      Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 06:37 -0700
        Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:54 -0500
          Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-14 06:43 -0700
            Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:59 -0500
              Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 05:56 -0700
                Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:03 -0500
                  Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 10:06 -0700
                    Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:14 -0500
    Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 15:20 -0500
      Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 02:37 -0700
        Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 16:05 +0000
      Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 06:52 -0700
        Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 16:14 +0000
          Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 09:21 -0700
          Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-14 12:47 +0000
            Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-14 15:11 +0000
        Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:56 -0500
          Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-14 06:50 -0700
            Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-14 13:58 +0000
              Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-14 15:19 +0000
            Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 17:02 -0500
              Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 06:07 -0700
                Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:24 -0500
                  Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 09:39 -0700
                    Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 11:52 -0500
                      Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 10:15 -0700
                        Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:55 -0500
                          Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 04:21 -0700
                            Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:43 -0500
                              Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 12:32 -0700
                                Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:14 -0500
                                  Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-17 05:50 -0700
                                    Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:15 -0500
                      Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-15 23:26 -0700
    Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-12 20:16 -0500
      Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 07:07 -0700
    Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 01:41 +0000
      Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 20:01 -0700
    Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 21:17 -0700
      Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:57 +0200
        Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 07:14 -0700
          Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 16:37 +0200
            Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-13 14:54 +0000
            Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:01 -0700
              Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-13 15:08 +0000
    Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 14:39 -0500
      Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 04:51 -0700
        Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 06:22 -0700
          Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-17 05:44 -0700
            Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:07 -0500
            Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-17 18:41 +0000
        Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-16 15:27 +0000
        Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:42 -0500
          Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 12:29 -0700
            Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:13 -0500
              Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-17 05:57 -0700
                Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:18 -0500
                Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-17 18:30 +0000
        Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:48 -0500
          Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 12:36 -0700
            Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:15 -0500

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#419290

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:11:27 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

http://www.modelmechanіcs.org/2016ibook.pdf 


Hello sir. Im a totally new poster here. I tried your link and it doesnt work. Do look into it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419296

Dne 13/05/2017 v 06:17 rotchm napsal(a):
> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:11:27 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> 
> http://www.modelmechanіcs.org/2016ibook.pdf 
> 
> 
> Hello sir. Im a totally new poster here. I tried your link and it doesnt work. Do look into it.
> 
A teenager childish game, is not it ?


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419323

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 3:57:58 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:

> A teenager childish game, is not it ?

Nope. If you want to age bad & become a little ol' grumpy senile fool, thats your choice! Just respected others who dont want to follow your footsteps! 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419326

Dne 13/05/2017 v 16:14 rotchm napsal(a):
> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 3:57:58 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> A teenager childish game, is not it ?
> 
> Nope. If you want to age bad & become a little ol' grumpy senile fool, thats your choice! Just respected others who dont want to follow your footsteps! 

Having yound mind and acting childish are 2 different things.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419328

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 13/05/2017 v 16:14 rotchm napsal(a):
>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 3:57:58 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
>> 
>>> A teenager childish game, is not it ?
>> 
>> Nope. If you want to age bad & become a little ol' grumpy senile fool,
>> thats your choice! Just respected others who dont want to follow your
>> footsteps!
> 
> Having yound mind and acting childish are 2 different things.

You don't even have a theory, like us everybody else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419329

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
 
> Having yound mind and acting childish are <rest of typos snipped>...
        ^^^^^^^
Your noticeable increase in typo's is a sign that you are getting old. 
Look into it.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419330

rotchm wrote:

> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
>  
>> Having yound mind and acting childish are <rest of typos snipped>...
>         ^^^^^^^
> Your noticeable increase in typo's is a sign that you are getting old.
> Look into it.

I disagree. He might be just stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419559

On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote:
> I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give physical explanations for all the observed processes and interactions in our universe. I 
> invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description.

I wonder, Ken, how it is that you think you as an ordinary man can make 
a revolutionary advance in physics, even though you have not studied any 
physics, even though you are not even clear on what the scientific 
method is, even though you cannot do fourth-grade mathematics, and even 
though you have no idea how to design and run a science experiment.

What on earth gives you the idea you should be allowed to pretend to do 
this?


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419621

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give physical explanations for all the observed processes and interactions in our universe. I 
> > invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description.
> 
> I wonder, Ken, how it is that you think you as an ordinary man can make 
> a revolutionary advance in physics, even though you have not studied any 
> physics, even though you are not even clear on what the scientific 
> method is, even though you cannot do fourth-grade mathematics, and even 
> though you have no idea how to design and run a science experiment.

Hey moron....I have a theory on physics and cosmology and I put it in a book. I copyrighted my theory and the copyright reviewer said: "I found plenty of creative original and copyrightable text.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419630

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 12:51:52 PM UTC+1, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > > I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give physical explanations for all the observed processes and interactions in our universe. I 
> > > invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description.
> > 
> > I wonder, Ken, how it is that you think you as an ordinary man can make 
> > a revolutionary advance in physics, even though you have not studied any 
> > physics, even though you are not even clear on what the scientific 
> > method is, even though you cannot do fourth-grade mathematics, and even 
> > though you have no idea how to design and run a science experiment.
> 
> Hey moron....I have a theory on physics and cosmology and I put it in a book. I copyrighted my theory and the copyright reviewer said: "I found plenty of creative original and copyrightable text.”

umm, you can certainly  copyright the text, but not the theory, apparently.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419722

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:22:23 AM UTC-4, 01405 wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 12:51:52 PM UTC+1, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > > > I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give physical explanations for all the observed processes and interactions in our universe. I 
> > > > invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description.
> > > 
> > > I wonder, Ken, how it is that you think you as an ordinary man can make 
> > > a revolutionary advance in physics, even though you have not studied any 
> > > physics, even though you are not even clear on what the scientific 
> > > method is, even though you cannot do fourth-grade mathematics, and even 
> > > though you have no idea how to design and run a science experiment.
> > 
> > Hey moron....I have a theory on physics and cosmology and I put it in a book. I copyrighted my theory and the copyright reviewer said: "I found plenty of creative original and copyrightable text.”
> 
> umm, you can certainly  copyright the text, but not the theory, apparently.

The copyright certificate says: text and compilation of figures on physics and cosmology.
So that means that the theory is copy-righted.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419745

On 5/17/17 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:22:23 AM UTC-4, 01405 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 12:51:52 PM UTC+1, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give physical explanations for all the observed processes and interactions in our universe. I
>>>>> invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder, Ken, how it is that you think you as an ordinary man can make
>>>> a revolutionary advance in physics, even though you have not studied any
>>>> physics, even though you are not even clear on what the scientific
>>>> method is, even though you cannot do fourth-grade mathematics, and even
>>>> though you have no idea how to design and run a science experiment.
>>>
>>> Hey moron....I have a theory on physics and cosmology and I put it in a book. I copyrighted my theory and the copyright reviewer said: "I found plenty of creative original and copyrightable text.”
>>
>> umm, you can certainly  copyright the text, but not the theory, apparently.
> 
> The copyright certificate says: text and compilation of figures on physics and cosmology.
> So that means that the theory is copy-righted.
> 

Ken, here is a statement about what can be copyrighted.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

Note in the first paragraph (if you can read that far), it says: 
"Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of 
operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."

You cannot copyright an idea or a system. You cannot copyright a theory.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419759

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:22:23 AM UTC-4, 01405 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 12:51:52 PM UTC+1, kenseto wrote:
>> > Hey moron....I have a theory on physics and cosmology and I put it in a
>> > book. I copyrighted my theory and the copyright reviewer said: "I found
>> >plenty of creative original and copyrightable text."

So you consider the opinion of a government bureaucrat whose job is to
determine whether a work is new or copied from elsewhere, and who determined
it really was new work, is somehow valuable?  Remember, the crayon scrawls of
a 2 year old also meet that definition.

>> umm, you can certainly  copyright the text, but not the theory, apparently.

>The copyright certificate says: text and compilation of figures on physics
>and cosmology.
>So that means that the theory is copy-righted.

No, Stupid Ken, you cannot copyright a theory.  Only your representation of
a theory, not the theory itself. Do you think Einstein copyrighted SR or GR?

Don't worry, you're safe. Since your theory is an absolute failure, nobody is
ever going to try to copy it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419641

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> > I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give p=
>hysical explanations for all the observed processes and interactions in our=
> universe. I=20
>> > invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate =
>description.
>>=20
>> I wonder, Ken, how it is that you think you as an ordinary man can make=
>=20
>> a revolutionary advance in physics, even though you have not studied any=
>=20
>> physics, even though you are not even clear on what the scientific=20
>> method is, even though you cannot do fourth-grade mathematics, and even=
>=20
>> though you have no idea how to design and run a science experiment.

>Hey moron....I have a theory on physics and cosmology and I put it in a book.
>I copyrighted my theory and the copyright reviewer said: "I found plenty
> of creative original and copyrightable text."

Stupid Ken, "creative and original" does *not* mean "useful", "good",
"scientific", "correct" or "true".  All it means is that it was determined that
you did not plagiarize your stupid book from anyone else.
Even complete total failures of physics such as Model Mechanics are eligible
for copyright.

So how much money did you spend publishing a book that nobody wants and does
nothing more that waste several cubic inches of space in an obscure Library
of Congress warehouse (the physics k00kbook section)?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419646

On 5/16/17 6:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give physical explanations 
>>> for all the observed processes and interactions in our universe. I
>>> invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description.
>>
>> I wonder, Ken, how it is that you think you as an ordinary man can make
>> a revolutionary advance in physics, even though you have not studied any
>> physics, even though you are not even clear on what the scientific
>> method is, even though you cannot do fourth-grade mathematics, and even
>> though you have no idea how to design and run a science experiment.
> 
> Hey moron....I have a theory on physics and cosmology and I put it in a book. I copyrighted my 
> theory and the copyright reviewer said: "I found plenty of creative original and copyrightable text.”

A book being copyrightable only means that it is original and exhibits 
creativity. It does not mean that the contents are legitimate science.

Where do you get the idea that a copyright reviewer has any comment on 
the validity of your work as legitimate science?


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419663

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:42:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/16/17 6:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give physical explanations 
> >>> for all the observed processes and interactions in our universe. I
> >>> invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description.
> >>
> >> I wonder, Ken, how it is that you think you as an ordinary man can make
> >> a revolutionary advance in physics, even though you have not studied any
> >> physics, even though you are not even clear on what the scientific
> >> method is, even though you cannot do fourth-grade mathematics, and even
> >> though you have no idea how to design and run a science experiment.
> > 
> > Hey moron....I have a theory on physics and cosmology and I put it in a book. I copyrighted my 
> > theory and the copyright reviewer said: "I found plenty of creative original and copyrightable text.”
> 
> A book being copyrightable only means that it is original and exhibits 
> creativity. It does not mean that the contents are legitimate science.
> 
> Where do you get the idea that a copyright reviewer has any comment on 
> the validity of your work as legitimate science?

You are a toy maker and you don’t know anything about science. So your comments have no validity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419678

On 5/16/17 2:29 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:42:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/16/17 6:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give physical explanations
>>>>> for all the observed processes and interactions in our universe. I
>>>>> invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder, Ken, how it is that you think you as an ordinary man can make
>>>> a revolutionary advance in physics, even though you have not studied any
>>>> physics, even though you are not even clear on what the scientific
>>>> method is, even though you cannot do fourth-grade mathematics, and even
>>>> though you have no idea how to design and run a science experiment.
>>>
>>> Hey moron....I have a theory on physics and cosmology and I put it in a book. I copyrighted my
>>> theory and the copyright reviewer said: "I found plenty of creative original and copyrightable text.”
>>
>> A book being copyrightable only means that it is original and exhibits
>> creativity. It does not mean that the contents are legitimate science.
>>
>> Where do you get the idea that a copyright reviewer has any comment on
>> the validity of your work as legitimate science?
> 
> You are a toy maker and you don’t know anything about science. So your comments have no validity.
> 

And is there any recognized scientist that has validated anything you've 
said? Any?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419726

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:13:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/16/17 2:29 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:42:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 5/16/17 6:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give physical explanations
> >>>>> for all the observed processes and interactions in our universe. I
> >>>>> invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description.
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder, Ken, how it is that you think you as an ordinary man can make
> >>>> a revolutionary advance in physics, even though you have not studied any
> >>>> physics, even though you are not even clear on what the scientific
> >>>> method is, even though you cannot do fourth-grade mathematics, and even
> >>>> though you have no idea how to design and run a science experiment.
> >>>
> >>> Hey moron....I have a theory on physics and cosmology and I put it in a book. I copyrighted my
> >>> theory and the copyright reviewer said: "I found plenty of creative original and copyrightable text.”
> >>
> >> A book being copyrightable only means that it is original and exhibits
> >> creativity. It does not mean that the contents are legitimate science.
> >>
> >> Where do you get the idea that a copyright reviewer has any comment on
> >> the validity of your work as legitimate science?
> > 
> > You are a toy maker and you don’t know anything about science. So your comments have no validity.
> > 
> 
> And is there any recognized scientist that has validated anything you've 
> said? Any?

No known scientist would openly acknowledge that my theory is worth considering for the following reasons:
1. Job security.
2. embarrassment.
3. money.
4. lazy.
5. etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419747

On 5/17/17 7:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:13:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/16/17 2:29 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:42:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/17 6:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give physical explanations
>>>>>>> for all the observed processes and interactions in our universe. I
>>>>>>> invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder, Ken, how it is that you think you as an ordinary man can make
>>>>>> a revolutionary advance in physics, even though you have not studied any
>>>>>> physics, even though you are not even clear on what the scientific
>>>>>> method is, even though you cannot do fourth-grade mathematics, and even
>>>>>> though you have no idea how to design and run a science experiment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey moron....I have a theory on physics and cosmology and I put it in a book. I copyrighted my
>>>>> theory and the copyright reviewer said: "I found plenty of creative original and copyrightable text.”
>>>>
>>>> A book being copyrightable only means that it is original and exhibits
>>>> creativity. It does not mean that the contents are legitimate science.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get the idea that a copyright reviewer has any comment on
>>>> the validity of your work as legitimate science?
>>>
>>> You are a toy maker and you don’t know anything about science. So your comments have no validity.
>>>
>>
>> And is there any recognized scientist that has validated anything you've
>> said? Any?
> 
> No known scientist would openly acknowledge that my theory is worth considering for the following reasons:
> 1. Job security.
> 2. embarrassment.
> 3. money.
> 4. lazy.
> 5. etc.
> 

Alright then, mighty fine excuses. So what we have learned is your book 
has not been recognized as being legitimate as a scientific theory by 
anyone, not one person. The only person who has recognized any value to 
it at all is a copyright reviewer, who said it was original and 
displayed creativity, though the copyright reviewer is not in any 
position to judge its value as legitimate science.

So the only person in the world who thinks your work is valuable and 
legitimate scientific work is you.



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#419758

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>No known scientist would openly acknowledge that my theory is worth
>considering for the following reasons:

1. It is a complete, absolute, total disaster of a failure.
2. No further reasons needed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web